Talukder v. State of New York

Background

M.D. A. Talukder, a Sunni Muslim seeking to become a New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) officer, alleged that his religious beliefs required him to maintain a beard approximately three inches long. When he arrived at the DOCCS Training Academy on August 1, 2021, he was told that he could not enter the academy unless his beard was no longer than one-eighth of an inch. The next day, he requested a religious accommodation allowing a three-inch beard. Kim Ghatt, the acting director of the DOCCS Training Academy, denied the request.

Talukder alleged that DOCCS allowed employees to wear longer beards for secular reasons, including under policies associated with “No Shave November,” COVID-19 vaccination, and certain staff positions. He alleged that he was barred from attending the academy and lost the opportunity to receive an annual salary of $43,937. He asserted claims under the First and Fourteenth Amendments through 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The defendants moved to dismiss the First Amended Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). At that stage, the court accepted the complaint’s factual allegations as true and asked whether they plausibly stated claims, not whether Talukder would ultimately prevail.

Constitutional claims

The court held that Talukder plausibly alleged a violation of the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause. Applying its reasoning from a prior related proceeding involving DOCCS’s beard policy, the court concluded that the complaint plausibly alleged that DOCCS burdened religious conduct while permitting similar secular conduct.

The defendants argued that trainees could be treated differently from corrections officers because all trainees had to pass respirator-fit testing. The court found that justification raised fact-intensive questions that could not be resolved on a motion to dismiss. The complaint plausibly alleged that requiring every trainee to be clean-shaven or to have a beard no longer than one-eighth of an inch might not be narrowly tailored to the goal of preparing trainees to become corrections officers, particularly because many officers would never need to wear a respirator.

The court also allowed Talukder’s claims for declaratory and injunctive relief against the State Officials in their official capacities to proceed. It found that the complaint plausibly alleged that Anthony J. Annucci and Ghatt had authority over DOCCS’s grooming policy or accommodation decisions. The court further ruled that Ghatt was not entitled to qualified immunity at this stage on Talukder’s § 1983 damages claim. It did not rule that Ghatt could never receive qualified immunity; it ruled only that the defense could not be resolved in her favor on this motion to dismiss.

Title VII claims

The court rejected the defendants’ argument that sovereign immunity barred Talukder’s Title VII religious-accommodation claim. It held that Talukder plausibly alleged that he had a sincere religious belief requiring a longer beard, informed DOCCS of that belief, was denied the requested accommodation, and was barred from participating in training unless he trimmed his beard. The court concluded that allowing a one-eighth-inch beard did not necessarily provide a reasonable accommodation because it did not resolve the conflict between his religious beliefs and DOCCS’s requirement.

The court also allowed Talukder’s Title VII disparate-treatment claim to proceed. It found that the complaint plausibly alleged that he was treated less favorably because of his religion while DOCCS staff were permitted to wear longer beards for secular reasons. At the pleading stage, the court considered it reasonable to compare a corrections officer trainee with corrections officers because trainees often graduate into corrections-officer positions. The court left for a later stage whether DOCCS could establish a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for applying different grooming standards to trainees.

The court dismissed Talukder’s Title VII retaliation claim. It reasoned that he was told on August 1, 2021 that he could not enter the academy unless he trimmed his beard, before he submitted his accommodation request on August 2. Because the alleged adverse action began before the protected activity, the complaint did not plausibly show that DOCCS excluded him because he requested an accommodation.

Disposition

The court granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss as to Talukder’s Title VII retaliation claim, but denied it in all other respects. The court directed the parties to submit a letter proposing next steps within 30 days.